English Language Teaching June, 2008

Cognitive Transfer and English writing

Xinyan Li
College of Foreign Languages, Yan’an University
Yan’an 716000, China
Tel: 86-136-2911-6820 E-mail: lixinyanzi@163.com
Abstract
The author examines the cognitive learning theory and cognitive transfer in English writing, tries to find out how it
relates to English writing, and how it influences English writing.
Keywords: Cognitive, Transfer, Writing
From the learner’s preparation to the completion of English writing a series of mental activities are involved: logical
thinking, reasoning and deduction. Learners need to conceive the ideas, choose the appropriate words and material to
construct the paragraphs, complete the sentences in logical order, use certain writing techniques and do the revisions,
etc. So the English writing process is actually a cognitive process. Then in order to know much about Chinese influence
on English writing process the author examined cognitive theory.
1. Cognitive learning theory
Cognition is a psychological term. It refers to the action or process of acquiring knowledge by reasoning or by intuition
or through senses. Cognitive psychology mainly studies the nature of knowledge, the way of obtaining knowledge and
how to apply it. So it focuses on active role of human cognitive organism (sense, understanding, and logical thinking) in
acquiring knowledge. Cognitive psychologists applied this theory to second language and foreign language teaching and
learning.
In the late 1960s the linguistic research began to move into the essence of language: the deepest level of language.
Linguists began to find one manifestation of general developments, one aspect of cognitive ability to deal with the
world and with self. These beliefs are found theoretical basis from Lois Bloom’s research, along with that of Jean Piaget.
Their research centers on the cognitive prerequisites of linguistic behavior. Piaget viewed that the overall development
was the result of child’s interaction with his environment, with a complementary interaction between the child’s
developing perceptual cognitive capacities and his linguistic experience. Bloom noted that an explanation of language
development depended upon an explanation of the cognitive underpinnings of language: what children know will
determine what they learn about the code for both speaking and understanding message. As to the second language
research the cognitive psychologist David Ausubel (1964) warned against the trends of drawing direct global analogies
between first and second language acquisition. He warned that adults learning a foreign language could, with their full
cognitive capacities, benefit from deductive presentations of grammar, that the native language of the learner was not
just an interfering factor—it could facilitate learning a second language, that the written form of the language could be
beneficial, that students could be overwhelmed by language spoken at its ‘natural speed’ and that they, like children,
could benefit from more deliberate speech from the teacher.
The famous Swedish cognitive psychologist Piaget believed there were two different organizational functions. One was
functional invariant, which was an unchangeable inherited psychological function. It determined how human interacted
with environment and society and learned from them. This function worked both for child discovering environment and
for scientists discovering the world. Another function was cognitive structures or cognitive schemata, which was the
result of functional invariant interacting with environment. The objective existence was the production of human
learning from environment. In what form it appears was determined by the former organizational function, or the
features of learning environment.
2. Application of cognitive theory to second language (L2) transfer
Cognitive theory provides a new perspective for language transfer research. It broadens the research field. Transfer of
learning method began to be investigated. Chelala first found the transfer of second language writing method. She found
many analogical performances when students wrote both in mother tongue and in English. They made a simple draft
before writing in both languages, and paid more attention to language coherence. When they revised it they mainly
focused on the substantial in content. Later a series of researches on L2 writing all proved the L2 writing method was

113
Vol. 1, No. 1 English Language Teaching

greatly influenced by their first language (Jones & tetroe, 1987; Edelsky, 1982). So the similarities of technique used in
L2 writing illustrated the positive transfer of first language.
From the stage of conception to the stage of embodying writing style L2 writers always apply their corresponding first
language writing technique to help their L2 writing. Even in the process of L2 composition revision first language
influences can be found. Hall (1990) analyzed four L2 learners revision both to their first language compositions and to
their English compositions. He found the analogical revision to the two compositions written in first language and their
L2 (table 1). And the writer of this article also observed four Chinese students revising their Chinese composition and
English composition. I found they both made outline and draft for their Chinese composition and after the revision was
made they also read it over to make sure the sentence was coherent and the word flow was smooth, etc.
Apart from this, researches on L2 transfer try to interpret the cognitive processing of First language effect on L2
production. Guo Chunjie, Liu fang (1997) analyzed twelve Chinese students (ten middle school students, two college
students) L2 picture writing by using thinking-aloud. According to the data analysis Chinese involvement in English
production is great (55%). 92% of students make response to the picture by thinking in Chinese. The greatest influence
of First language on L2 production is not in its external form-first language transfer, but in the highest stage of cognitive
processing such as the logical judgment, analysis and deduction (Guo, Liu, 1997). There is deeper level of Chinese
influence on English—that is Chinese involvement. Chinese transfer is its primary form, whereas the cognitive process
is the higher stage of Chinese involvement. That is to say, it is the English writer’s psychological response to Chinese
transfer, the dynamic process of English output. Later Wen Quifang and Guo Chunjie summarized the five functions of
Chinese in English writing: transformation, confirmation, generating ideas, retrieving L2 forms and controlling the
writing procedures. They also studied the relationship between Chinese thinking and the scores of students’ composition
and found that those who scored high less depended on Chinese for their thinking. Feng Guoxin (2001) analyzed the
function of Chinese involvement in the process of English output and concluded that Chinese involvement made the
English writer form the habit of mental translation. That is, English learners first obtain or form concept in Chinese, and
then express it in English. English learners cannot think automatically in English, which is derived from the fact that the
Chinese has a closer relation to concept than to English. And the research further proved that most English writer’s
target language psycho-vocabulary could not meet the demand of English writer in writing. So the English writer should
actively build up his psycho-vocabulary so as to improve one’s ability of expressing his mind in English, try to form
concept in English and slowly reduce mental translation.
When L2 writers write composition they naturally expect to draw words form mind the topic-related phrases. He will
choose the contextual words to form a sentence or a whole piece, and these words are just the psycho-vocabulary
mentioned above. If the L2 writer did not fully grasp such vocabulary and was forced to express himself in English he
had to turn to his mother tongue so the error may result.
Zhang Guorong (2002) compared the cognitive process of Chinese writing with English writing he found the highest
degree of active work of subjects. The subject processes information while writing. There are two types information
processing: surface processing and deep processing. The higher degree of the subject’s proficiency level the more
dominated the deep processing. Language information processing is supported by subject’s language background
system. Usually the mother tongue language background system is complete while the target language background
system is insufficient and sometimes vacant. This insufficiency or vacancy may result in subject’s borrowing of or
relying on mother tongue language background system. In the English writing process the subject may use the
two-language background system interchangeably. Chinese writer is only influenced by one language background
system while English writer is influenced by both systems. If the two systems can be used interchangeably positive
transfer may appear, and vice versa. Zhang (2002) also found the coding and decoding systems of two languages are
essentially different. English writer does not only use target language to code and decode language information he also
switches frequently from native to target language coding and decoding systems, so it might take one more time and
effort to write in L2. Obviously, it is quite rewarding to investigate the cognitive processing of language output because
it is one important channel to deal with the transfer problem in writing.
References
Ausubel, D. A. (1963). Cognitive structure and facilitation of meaningful verbal learning. Journal of Teacher Education,
14:217-221.
Feng, Guoxin. (2001) Cognition in transcultural English writing. Foreign Language and Foreign LanguageTeaching,
2 0 0 1 (4 ).
Guo, Chunjie. & Liu, fang. (1997) The influence of mother tongue in foreign language writing. Modern Foreign
Languages, 1997(4).
Hall, C. (1990). Managing the complexity of revising our languages. TESOL Quarterly 24(1), 43-6.
Jones, S. & J, Tetroe. (1987). Composing in a second language. In a Matsuchashi Writing in Real Time: Modeling

114
English Language Teaching June, 2008

Production Processes. New York: lengman.

Piaget, J. (1995). The language and thought of the child. New York: Meridian Books
Zhang, Guorong. (2001). A comparative study of writer ’s cognitive feature in both foreign and mother language writing.
Sichuan International Study College.

Table 1
Changes L1 Percentage of total L2
Word 62% 59%
Phrase 29% 26%
Information 52% 51%
Grammar 38% 42%

115